Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027

Kavin Mudaliar is engaging in edit war, dispute and adding regional research, and already informed. Over to Admin. --AntanO 17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AntanO, I think this report should be at WP:AN3 rather than here, but from a cursory inspection it does look like Kavin Mudaliar's approach to editing is concerning - they're getting reverted a lot, and there's not much in the way of talk page participation from them. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mclarenfan17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The mentioned user keeps changing the outlook of 2020 World Rally Championship#Entries to his own liking. This is going on for atleast one month. We've had a system for every previous season article. Most of all, we had a discussion, where nobody supported him (all participants were against this new format), but Mclarenfan17 still editwars to keep his own preferred version. I'm making this report, because I can not see the good faith in these edits. Examples of the edits (just enough not to break 3RR): + 3 during the last 24h . So is a consensus something to respect or not? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I don't deny that a consensus was formed. However, in the time since that consensus was formed, new details have come to light and the implementation of that consensus contradicts the sources in the article. I will try to keep this as simple as possible:

At the time the consensus was formed, Hyundai and Toyota had announced their driver line-ups:

• Hyundai had two full-time entries (for Tanak/Jarveoja and Neuville/Gilsoul) and a third entry shared between two crews (Sordo/del Barrio and Loeb/Elena).
• Toyota had three full-time entries (for Ogier/Ingrassia, Evans/Martin and Rovanpera/Hulttunen).

However, after that consensus was formed, Toyota went on to announce that they would enter two additional cars during the year, one for Jari-Matti Latvala and one for Takamoto Katsuta. This is supported in the article by this source (currently source #20 in the article). Crucially, the article makes it clear that Toyota have not decided how to structure their team:

If [Jari-Matti] Latvala secured a five-round deal it could reignite enthusiasm for Toyota to create a 'B team'. Latvala could potentially run alongside Toyota protege Takamoto Katsuta, who will start all eight European WRC rounds and Rally Japan. Sources in Toyota confirmed a second team was under consideration for 2020. The original idea was for [Kalle] Rovanpera and Katsuta to drive for the second team so the two youngsters could learn out of the spotlight. Registering and running a second, point-scoring manufacturer team could be beneficial for Toyota's ambitions of a second makes' title in three years. Latvala said he is ready to help [team principal Tommi] Makinen and Toyota.

"Like I said, I want to drive next year. Maybe it could make sense to join [Katsuta] in a second team and try to score some points," Latvala said.

And this is where the issue stems from. The consensus in the article is to organise the entry table by grouping the entrants together, bringing it in line with the style of table used in previous years. This style uses two tables, one for entries that can score manufacturer points, and one for entries that cannot. By organising the 2020 entries so that they centred on the team, the article implies that the team structure has been set, which contradicts the sources. I have tried to point this out in edit summaries and on the article talk page, but the only response that I have gotten from Pelmeen10 has been the claim that I am deliberately going against the consensus because I don't like it. Furthermore, after I posted an explanation for why a different format was needed, this is what he responded with:

You comments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You don't have any kind of consensus here. The unannounced car numbers just can't be shown as the most important thing, which the sorting is based on. Like we discussed, there are no sources to back all these numbers. Loeb btw is now associated with number 9.

I have tried to point out that the table format implies something that contradicts the sources and he instead talks about "unannounced car numbers", which leads me to believe that he has not read a) any of my comments or b) the sources in the article and has instead rushed to revert my changes to the article, assuming that I did it because of previous opposition to the table format.

Pelmeen10 opened his post with a question: is a consensus something to respect or not? I would like to answer that: yes, a consensus is something to be respected—but at the same time, a consensus does not give editors a licence to ignore, dismiss or misrepresent a reliable and verifiable source. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: I have since realised that when Pelmeen10 mentions "unannounced car numbers", he is referreding a a discussion at WT:MOTOR in which he and another editor made a specific claim (that because the title of the regulations refers to "seasonal numbers", drivers must reapply for their numbers every year, and so all of the numbers in the 2020 article are unsourced), but refused to provide any sources to support this when asked for them. In the time since posting this ANI report, Pelmeen10 has repeated the claim (by referring me to that discussion) to justify enforcing the consensus. My response has been to provide multiple sources debunking his theory. If he is trying to claim that the consensus was based on that discussion at WT:MOTOR, then I would argue that there was never a consensus to begin with because it was based on original research (only the title refers to "seasonal numbers"; there is nothing in the actual regulations to support his claim) and because he refused to provide reliable and verifiable sources despite being asked multiple times, instead insisting that the burden rested with people who disagreed with him. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes; yet, so far, the discussion is about content details. Please focus future comments on "urgent incidents" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Cullen328: I am aware of what ANI is for and I am not trying to use it to resolve a content dispute. I simply feel that Pelmeen10 is misrepresenting things. He claims that I am wilfully ignoring a consensus because of personal preference, but I am not. I simply felt the need to provide some contextual detail because a) I cannot assume any admin reading this is familiar with the subject, b) the reasons for my decisiom to change the format back are not immediately obvious when reading the article, and c) I feel that Pelmeen10 has a habit of not reading articles, sources and policies thoroughly and I wanted to put something here to refer back during any discussion.

What would you suggest I do otherwise? Say "yes, I ignored the consensus"? Because I did. Not out of personal preference as Pelmeen10 claims, but out of necessity. When I changed the format of the table back, I tried to keep a format that at least resembled the consensus, but was unable to do so. I posted this message to the article talk page (dated 29 November), addressed Pelmeen10 directly (and later edited that message) that same day when he reverted it. There was little activity on the talk page (and none directly related to the issue) until 26 December when I again explained to Pelmeen10 why I felt that I had to make the change. With no opposition to the change for a month (and the expectation that the original consensus would be applied once a more-comprehensive source becomes available), I felt that WP:EDITCONSENSUS applied as a temporary solution. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you openly admit that you are ignoring consensus even though Wikipedia:Consensus is policy, and you are claiming that your own personal perception of "necessity" overrides policy. I am unpersuaded. Can you please explain yourself more clearly? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: in the time between the consensus being formed and this ANI being opened, more information about the 2020 World Championship has been made public. I felt that this source published on 29 November (and currently in the article as source #20) changed things and would have affected the consensus discussion had it been available at the time (for the record, the consensus was still being discussed as recently as 28 November).

The consensus at WP:WRC is that entry tables should be structured in such a way that all crews competing for one team should be grouped together (for example, in the 2019 article). This is common across all motorsport-related articles. However, that consensus was formed before 29 November. On 29 November, Toyota announced that they would enter two additional cars during the 2020 season. The content of that source made it clear that they had not yet decided on the structure of the team. Would it be one big team of five cars? Or two separate teams? And if so, how would the cars be split between them?

When I saw this, I realised that there would be a problem with the consensus. It meant that the entry table grouped all five Toyota entries together as if they were one team, which contradicted what the source said. This source—Autosport—is one of the most widely-used sources across motorsport articles because it is extremely reliable. Furthermore, Hyundai had already announced how their team would be structured, which meant I felt the article further contradicted the source because it implied Toyota had finalised their structure, which they had not.

When I made the changes to the table, I tried as best I could to respect the consensus while also reflecting the content of the 29 November source, but I simply could not make it work. I also knew that within six weeks an ironclad source—the entry list for the first round—would be published, resolving the issue altogether because it would make clear who was competing for which team. I felt that I had to choose between a consensus which inadvertently contradicted sources (which had not been available at the time) or overlooking the consensus in favour of a very reliable and verifiable source with the expectation that the consensus would be applied once a source would be published within six weeks. Everything that I did here was in good faith. It was not, as Pelmeen10 contends, because I didn't like the consensus, but because of information published after the consensus was formed. Had the information published on 29 November been available when the consensus was formed, it would have been factored into the consensus discussion in which case a) the consensus would not have been formed as it was, or b) editors would have agreed to wait until the structure of Toyota's team was announced before we applied the table format. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, you say the you understand that this noticeboard does not judge content disputes and yet you continue to to argue here at ANI in favor of your preferred content. Let me be clear: no uninvolved editor here at ANI cares about your content disputes. Go pursue Dispute resolution which might include a Request for comment. In brief, if the facts underlying a consensus have changed, then engage with other editors interested in the article to build a new consensus. Be persuasive. Forcefully claiming the right to impose your preferred changes is wrong, just plain wrong. Please do not go there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You asked me to explain my actions, and I have tried to do just that with a sufficient level of detail that you understand my thinking here, but you just reply "ANI isn't for content disputes". I'm not claiming that I have some right to ignore a consensus. I'm saying when I was put in a position where I had to choose between a consensus and a reliable source, I chose the reliable source when satisfying both the consensus and the source proved impossible. When I posted this to the article talk page, nobody came along and made an alternative suggestion that resolved the dilemma. I had every expectation and every intention that the agreed-upon format would eventually be applied and everything I did was done in good faith. This has nothing to do with a "preferred version" of the article.

What would you do in my position? You can observe a consensus that is largely cosmetic, but contradicts reliable sources that you did not have access to when that consensus was made; or you can overlook the consensus for the time being to make sure the article accurately reflects its sources with a view to reintroducing the consensus as soon as it is possible to do so. You cannot satisfy both at once, and it seems that my biggest mistake was that I made the wrong choice. I made it because I cannot see anything in WP:CONSENSUS that says editor are allowed to form a consensus that ignores WP:RELIABLE. If I'm missing it, please point it out to me. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, the correct course of action here would have been to first boldly attempt to edit the article, then go to the talk page to hash it out. You should not attempt to reinstate your edits again until the discussion has been resolved. If you think that other editors on the article are ignoring your arguments, you can take it to WP:DRN or convene an WP:RFC. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I tried to do exactly that. This is the edit I made to the article on 29 November, and this is the explanation I posted to the talk page five minutes later. The only person who responded (and not on the talk page, my talk page or at any relevant WikiProject) was an editor with a habit of reverting things on sight and not reading articles and sources, including articles he is reverting. Case in point, this edit where he removed reliably-sourced content (Takamoto Katsuta's entry) because he didn't check. I've been bold, I've posted an explanation for why I felt the changes were necessary, shown a willingness to work with others on it and nothing has come of it until the past 24 hours (there were a few other edits in the past week, but largely unrelated to the issue and were adding unsourced content). Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Mclarenfan17, taking it to the talk page in November was the correct decision. If other editors don't respond to you there, the next step is to convene an RfC or start a thread here, depending on the exact nature of the issue. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 09:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, other editors in rallying articles now mostly leave one or couple of comments (or are not even gonna comment anymore), because Mclarenfan17 can keep up the discussion endlessly (weeks, months) with the same arguements, which will never lead to anything. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

So can I revert to the wikitable format we have a consensus of? The one we've used for years. Because no Rfc or DRN has started (which I'm pretty sure is not necessary, because all active editors in this subject have already given their thoughts. Plus, Mclarenfan17 claims his version is just temporary. Is it now clear that Mclarenfan17 shouldn't revert me again? Though, I don't want to be part of an edit war. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I have no objection to the consensus being applied, but would suggest that its implementation needs to accurately reflect the sources in the article. In other words, it cannot group the five Toyota entries together as though they are one team. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Another violation: Mclarenfan17 did not even respect a consensus after the DRN/Rfc is finished: here is one where uninvolved editor summed up the discussion with "it appears that there is a small consensus favouring the removal of the third row" - but just 3 days later (24 Nov 2019) Mclarenfan17 reverts it claiming "The "consensus" was so small that no-one did anything with it for TEN WEEKS and it's undermined by one editor's agenda". So the behaviour is repeating over and over again... Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the "consensus" in question was formed by an editor who has engaged in a sustained campaign of harrassment (particularly wikihounding) against me. It was very weak to begin with me and clearly designed to frustrate my editing practice rather than benefit the article. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that user (Tvx1) has respect among other rallying editors (including me). But it looks to me that you try to undermine his comments by getting personal (attacking and insulting). You have also attacked other editors, both in comments and edit summaries. If needed, I can bring examples. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That user's edit history shows that his only contributions to rallying articles are to join in discussions on the current season's talk page and oppose me in discussions. He has never actually contributed anything to a rallying article. It stands out because his edit history shows a handful of topics that he likes to edit articles about, and that he contributes to multiple articles and talk page discussions within those topics—but not rallying, where he only ever contributes to one talk page at a time. It's really none of your business and a matter for a separate ANI. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You are making some serious accusations of bad faith and generally seriously wrong editing by User:Tvx1 here even though you provided no diffs, and AFAIK there's no case where your claims were established. You've also failed to notify Tvx1 of this discussion despite your serious accusations. I'll do so for you but I suggest you either provide diffs and a brief summary to support your allegations or withdraw them lest you are blocked for personal attacks for making unsupported allegations of wrong doing. I recalled seeing your 2 names before and came across Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#Harrassment by an editor, and your claims didn't seem to be accepted in part because your comment was way too long. Nevertheless, there was some frustration at your unwillingness to accept any wrong doing on your part. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I did not want to turn this discussion into a discussion about wiki-hounding. I feel that a separate ANI would be more appropriate for that; however, I have not had any issues with the editor in question and last time I tried to raise subject of wiki-hounding, I felt the editor successfully misrepresented my ANI report as bring some petty revenge for "losing" a DRN discussion (which was not helped by a DRN volunteer refusing to read anything I posted, but seeing fit to pass judgement on it anyway). As you can perhaps appreciate, in light of this I have little appetite to start another ANI about wiki-hounding. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If you believe there are procedural issues which means a closure was incorrect, you should discuss this with the closer and try to get the closing statement changed. Worst case, you could always bring it to WP:AN or similar and ask for a re-close. Likewise if you feel that consensus has changed because of new information, it may be okay to WP:BOLDly make a change in some cases. But once someone objects, you need to work on establishing that consensus has indeed changed. If someone has objected, and no one else is commenting, then you have no real evidence that consensus has changed, whatever your views of the other person's objections and so you have to return to the old consensus established via an RfC. You can try using WP:3O or some other method like posting a neutral message on a relevant wikiproject asking for more feedback. Ultimately, if you cannot get a consensus via those methods, then you need to start another WP:RfC to establish this alleged new consensus and overturn the old one. You cannot simply refuse to accept a consensus, even a narrow one because you don't like it. To be clear I'm including any sincere belief on your part that the consensus view is wrong, doesn't work, is based on OR, is invalid, etc as well as your personal opinions on the motivations of other editors. Especially not a consensus 3 days old. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel I did exactly that. I made a BOLD edit based on new information. I posted an explanation on the talk page and I got no response. Pelmeen10 did revert it and I directly addressed him on the talk page, asking him to take care because his revert had deleted content from the article that had nothing to do with the consensus. He never responded. Nobody did, and things have been quiet until about 24 hours ago. Despite Pelmeen10's repeated claim that I ignored the consensus because I disliked it, everything I did was done in good faith. I felt I had to choose between a consensus and a source with information that could change the consensus. I only made the change after trying to re-format the table to be consistent with the consensus, but also accurately reflect the sources, but failed.

If Pelmeen10 wants to continue claiming I ignored the consensus because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then I think he needs to provide some evidence to support the claim. Otherwise, he is ignoring WP:AGF.

I have performed a few reverts in the section of the article in the past week, but this was because unsourced content was being added to the article and had nothing to do with the consensus. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I said the above without looking at the article discussion. And frankly now that I have, I wouldn't want to talk to you on the talk page either. I see you proposed working together on wording an RfC which is excellent.

But then I see you said this "Nothing Tvx1 has to say on this subject has any value." and "I sm not insulting people. It is a simple statement of fact: Tvx1's only interest in these discussions is hounding me." which is quite the opposite. If you want to minimise your involvement with Tvx1, that is fine. But as I said above, if you have evidence that Tvx1 is hounding you, you need to open an ANI case and convince the community of this. Until you do so, you need to stop making accusations especially not on article talk pages, and especially where it's of little relevance. (The editor tried 3 ping 3 others, so it's not like they were only asking for Tvx1's opinion.)

As an uninvolved editor, seeing such random personal attacks makes me very reluctant to get involved in any discussion with you. Who knows if you're going to decide to attack me for no reason?

More generally, if I'm frank, this seems a very dumb issue to get so worked up about. The championship starts on the 23 January per the article. This means that by now, by the time any RfC closes, if it lasts the full 30 days, it will be moot point since the concerns will no longer hold. This doesn't mean it's okay to have inaccurate information, but can you all really not come to some sort of agreement to address all concerns? Have you consider keeping the table as is and using footnotes to clarify for example? Surely there's something you can do without needing an RfC. If you wanted an RfC to try and solve the issue for future years, that would be another thing, but it may be better to wait until this year's championship starts so people don't get too bogged down in the details specific to this year.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to implement a consensus version taking on board the concerns of both editors I can only hope it sticks of they take it from here since I don't think I can be bothered taking it further. Anyway I mainly came back to say if anyone does want an RfC, it is imperative that you agree on a wording beforehand and then focus on some brief explanation backed by our policy and guidelines for your preference. An RfC with extensive back and forths between existing participants like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World Rally/Archive 3#Request for Comment on table format is likely doomed to failure. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the content-related help. But I started this topic because the behaviour of the mentioned user - ignoring consensus and editwarring into his own preferred version. I'm not convinced the user will stop this kind of behaviour. His previous user Prisonermonkeys was blocked several times for editwarring, I feel the only thing he is learned, is not to break 3RR (more than 3 reverts in 24h) and remove "undid revision..." from edit summaries. I mean, previous dispute was with not showing the possibility that the defending champion can choose number 1 for his car number (per the rules), I insisted TBA (no direct source for the numbers) & started a discussion here, later moved it here to get more feedback. These are the reverts Mclarenfan17 made: He reverted different users 21 times to a version with only #8 until left it alone. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

None of those edits provided a source to support the change of the number.

I would also like to point out that Pelmeen10 made a specific claim in that WT:MOTOR discussion. I repeatedly asked him to provide sources to support that claim and he refused. He instead insisted that the burden lay with people who disagreed with him to prove him wrong. The issue came up on the 2020 article talk page where he claimed that the numbers "were not directly sourced or official". My response was to provide four reliable sources, all of which debunked his original claim. Pelmeen10 replied to this by saying the issue was not being discussed, even though he brought the subject up in the first place.

It is obvious that Pelmeen10 wants to see some kind of admin action taken against me. However, the diffs he has provided show me reverting unsourced content and he himself has a bad habit of making unsourced claims and refusing to provide any sources in support of those claims when challenged. He has also taken to engaging in original research to reach the claims that he has made in the first place. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really get the accusation you made. The content added to Wikipedia needs direct sources, not the other way around. The content shouldn't be wrong by adding more than sources actually write. I was challenging your added content, not you challenging me. While you're trying to boomerang this somehow, you are confusing something by providing 26 December talk, while the reverts I listed happened between 31 October and 21 November. So the issue did not come up just 2 days ago but was resolved on 21 November by you not reverting (examples ) the note that was suggested in the discussion. The note is now there from 21 November. The rule that defending champion can choose number one, is in the sporting regulations and you know it. I tryed adding the sporting regulations as a source on 3 November, which you reverted. "The issue" with other numbers was raised in 22 November here by two more users, Tvx1 and SSSB. I quote: Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that. - In any of the sources you provided, it was never mentioned that they can keep the same number year on year, nor was explained what the "career number" means. In the rules, they are still "seasonal numbers". Sorry for discussing content here. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is original research.

Having taken another look at the sources in the article, as well as at the sporting regulations, I'm no longer convinced that these drivers/crews have chosen career numbers. Neither the sources, nor the regulations mention "career numbers". They all actually talk about season/seasonal numbers. It seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season. While it is likely that crews will pick the same numbers over multiple season, we can't really be certain of that.

The only place that "seasonal numbers" is mentioned is in the title of Section 17 of those regulations. There is nothing in the text of Section 17 that "it seems like they only reserve a number for the duration of a season". I have repeatedly searched for sources to support this intepretation, and have found nothing. I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources to support this interpretation, and you have refused. And I have provided no less than four reliable and verifiable sources that specifically state that crews choose permanent numbers. You responded by changing the subject. It's quite obvious that you don't have the sources to support the claim, but nevertheless insist on it being true and refuse to address anyone or anything that points out that this is incorrect. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources you listed mention what does that "career number" mean! It fails to mention that the numbers will carry on to the next season (2020 in this case). That's what you can call WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. Removing the numbers for not having enough information is not OR, very funny you'd think that. It would be the correct thing not to list "expected numbers". Now you've even added the same numbers to 2021_World_Rally_Championship#Entries, crazy. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this should have gone to AIV, but it's a slightly complicated. I think Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO needs a block. While I have no idea if any of this is true , their first edit was this which I strongly suspect is not true. Someone has been trying to add such nonsense for a few months now . The last edit is particularly interesting since it comes from Special:Contributions/Marshall77, who managed to get themselves blocked after adding material to that article (Doug Chapman (American football)) that was rev-deleted. It also highlights another reason for a block, assuming SinclairCEO doesn't know what to do to edit the article, they may go inactive since the article has been semi-protected. But the history with Marshall77 suggests it will be re-activated once protection expires. BTW, while I assume looking at the rev-deleted material will probably be enough to prove whoever is behind this is up to no good, see if there are any doubts. Incidentally, I think we can be sure that the editor is trying to imply some connection with Sinclair Broadcast Group which doesn't exist so it's also a username violation. Yes, I'm sure they'll be back, but with more blocks, it will hopefully be easier to deal with e.g. simply reported to AIV. Nil Einne (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Confirmed to at least one previous vandal and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Toddstarnes3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has threatened to sue those editing the article about him previously, and again repeatedly today, see dif. Obviously he is frustrated and I have attempted to explain alternative options dif, but he has not responded to the WP:NLT warning made in November, nor previously responded to COI concerns, and other accounts User:Toddstarnes and User:TPDNYC were blocked by Donald Albury as socks. Melcous (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you think this really is Todd Starnes making the edits? Hard to prove I know. If true, then WP:AUTO would apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One of Starnes's books is entitled They Popped My Hood and Found Gravy on the Dipstick, so AUTO definitely applies. EEng 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether it is Starnes or not. Whoever it is the legal threats are grounds for a block unless and until they are withdrawn unequivocally. This doesn't mean that we should ignore them, but simply that anyone has to choose between being able to edit Wikipedia and making such threats. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The legal threats are unambiguous and the user has continued to make them after being warned. I have duly blocked the account. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think 2600:1702:4000:8110::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is more likely to catch the next IP they use, based on the contribs of the previous two months. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

William Zabaleta is a talent manager, one of his former clients Geoff Emerick, a grammy winning recording engineer. An account User:Geoffemerick claimed to be emerick himself in 2017. The account was editing about his own articles. Unfortunately, Emerick died in 2018, but this account keeps on editing articles related to William Zabaleta, his agency and his clients. I suspect a case of shared accounts, UPE, and COI, and a general sense of disgust for the talent agency. Daiyusha (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The use of an account in the name of a person who died recently is also in extremely poor taste. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That's pretty despicable. Blocked for UPE, promotional editing and impersonation. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

47.213.232.81 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) Keeps adding falsified data to tables, claiming that the 2024 Youth Winter Olympics have been awarded to Pyongchang, when they have not. (here and here). ip has an extensive history of being uncooperative and quickly blanking their talk page. Cards84664 (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• I was only trying to help. I used a citation in the 2024 Winter Youth Olympics page and in the Youth Olympic Games page and according to the source I cited in both of these pages, Pyeongchang is the only confirmed candidate so far and the IOC is to award the host city in a week and none of the other cities in contention have expressed further interest. 47.213.232.81 (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

  That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – This user has been making questionable unexplained changes to Abby Hatcher for months. Because the user's IP changes a lot, a range block may be needed. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. I don't see where the edits in question are vandalism. It mostly looks like innocuous wording changes and a few minor additions. I don't see bad faith anywhere in the two edits made by that IP, or why they even needed to be reverted. Jayron32 18:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The user has repeatedly state that Sparkles is a Fuzzly, but Sparkles is never referred to as a Fuzzly in the show. The user also keeps describing Grumbles as "monster", but a monster does not have a definite appearance. I fear he/she will just keep adding these without explanation. In fact the user doesn't seem to explain his/her edits. 107.77.227.107 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not vandalism. Vandalism does NOT mean "Something I disagree with". This is a disagreement between you and them over a few wording changes and what those words mean. Have you tried starting a discussion on the article talk pages to explain why you disagree with their changes? What were your prior attempts to reach out to this person? --Jayron32 19:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:CAA9:1300:A0B6:32BB:47AF:92E7/64 may be interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of bad-faith editing there. A few minor tweaks here and there, the kind of stuff thousands of people do every day. Can you post some diffs of actual bad-faith editing in that /64 range? --Jayron32 19:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What this article could use is sources, rather than fights over a fictional race of animals on a kid's show that a five year-old and a 40 year-old parent will never care to learn the specifics about. I see plenty of sources literally nobody outside of the kidvid cruft community cares about regarding episode premiere ratings...I see nothing about the actual show's characters, but I see lots of long writing about each character that would make for a good lullaby (they all need severe editing). This has all the makings of a lame edit war. Nate • (chatter) 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The author user:Austhistory99 (self declared COI) of this hatchet job on author Bruce Pascoe has been contributing to both his bio article and the article for his book Dark Emu - considering the tone of his website Dark Emu Exposed, I believe this goes beyond a COI. Austhistory99 has now published a copy of Pascoe's book the articles talk page, the book is popular and contemporary, currently in publication and published under copyright - offering the text in full is a blatant copyright violation. Given the editors self admitted authorship of an attack page that describes the articles subject as "Chairman Pascoe" and "Emperor Pascoe" among other slurs and their recent copyright violation/disregard for the subjects intellectual property. I believe this editor has a demonstrable and serious issue with the articles subject and should be topic banned from all articles relating to Bruce Pascoe. Bacondrum (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever else, I agree that linking to the full book is a violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. While WP:REX and other methods can be used to exchange resources to help editors, a general link to the full book in the talk page is way too far. The editor should be blocked if they do this again. Nil Einne (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I want to point out that the copyright that was violated regarding Dark Emu belongs to the BLP article's subject Bruce Pascoe making this a particularly troubling case of copyright violation. Considering the editor runs a page dedicated to defaming Pascoe and discrediting his book, it seems inconceivable that he did not know it was a copyright violation. Bacondrum (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism by TM2042 on Blair Cottrell repeatedly adding unfounded/uncited claims including accusations of (Redacted). Blatant vandalism. Bacondrum (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. But please read the large banner that appears whenever you edit this page: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• VitalSignal (talk · contribs)

Appears to be a good faith editor, but has ignored templates and prefers to add content without sources; more specifically, their 'sources' are meaningless. I'd prefer not to edit war and go to a level four warning, so any assistance would be grand. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• And an apparent minor copyright violation that may require rev/deletion . 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've done the revision deletion and another admin has issued a short block for disruptive editing. Thanks for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My thanks to you both. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
      • PS I've added some helpful links to the user talk page using the welcome-laws template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Despite repeated warnings in the past at User talk:Pmoore2222, this user is again editing in a way that raises serious COI concerns. Note that his entire list of User Contributions, dating back to 1 April 2009, consists solely of edits to what appears to be his own bio. NedFausa (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• He apparently confirms he is Patrick Moore (consultant) with this edit summary and with this edit to his talk page asking to be unblocked back in 2011. Note that back in 2011 when he was unblocked, it was on condition of editing in userspace only. See User_talk:Pmoore2222#COI. He is now in violation of that agreement, albeit it was nearly 9 years ago. @Materialscientist: pinging Materialscientist to the conversation as he was the blocking/unblocking administrator at the time. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• It's been a couple of days, and no further activity from him has happened. I've posted a long note to him regarding this issue, as it appears unlikely he will see this thread before it is archived. I've watchlisted the article, and watchlisted his talk page. Hopefully he can work with us, not against us. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The user has only ever used their talk page once. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here experienced in LTA? I have a long-time refspammer I would like to list. Guy (help!) 23:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Bbb23 is the best. Lightburst (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you got a spraycan and a stencil for that? Narky Blert (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

98.111.189.131 (talk · contribs) is making non-stop vandalism only edits, despite repeated (including level 4) warnings... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP has a total of five edits, four of them in a recent 20 minutes. They haven't edited since the final warnings. Please report again if there are further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

IP user 98.208.64.39 has posted what appears to be a legal threat at User talk:ToBeFree, threatening "I will be reporting you, should this happen again to both Wikipedia and the German relevant authorities in your nation", apparently in response to a block. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

My name is Shira and i'm head of marketing for Comsec. I have followed the deletion request procedures twice, and the editor wrote: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Comsec Consulting. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Our management team is not interested in having a Wiki page for Comsec, which is why i asked for it to be deleted. I have spent a few hours trying to see how i can communicate this request otherwise. As a private company, we have to have the option to do. Can i please ask for someones help on this?

Thank you very much. Best, Shira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.235.30.250 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is not how deletion works at Wikipedia. In your previous two attempts to delete the article, you first blanked it (which is disruptive, and doesn't delete it anyway) and then used the PROD template, which is only for obviously non-notable articles. The valid reasons for deletion are at WP:DEL#REASON and do not include the subject's wish to do so. You could try WP:AFD, but I'd suggest, looking at the article, that it is probably notable per WP:CORP and would not therefore gain consensus for deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I assume this is about Comsec Consulting. To be blunt, we don't really care what your management team is or is not interested in. As a private company, you do not get to dictate what others write about your company, with a few very limited exceptions relating to defamation and similar, but simply writing about the existence of your company clearly doesn't qualify as defamation. In other words, as a private website, we get to chose what we do and do not write about. Once a WP:PROD has been removed, you do not get to add it back. Your only option is to take it to WP:AFD. But if you take it to AFD with the reasoning that your management team doesn't want the article, it will fail. I'm not certain from the article whether or not your company meets our WP:GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Although the sourcing seems limited, I do see some info suggesting there may be enough reliable secondary source coverage. Regardless, this is best assessed by someone familiar with our sourcing requirements, not by you someone with a WP:COI who only wants to page gone because your management team doesn't like it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nil Einne, this is biting the newbies and is far too aggressive. Please stop. DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not see that Nil's edit was biting or aggressive, but simply spelling out that encyclopedia articles are not part of anyone's marketing programme so are not under the control of their subjects. It's better to say this clearly rather than string people along with euphemisms only for them to eventually find this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comsec Consulting, courtesy of User:Michepman. ——SN54129 13:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

A few years ago, an individual successfully had a bio article of himself deleted. The individual was a (by then) known critic of Wikipedia. PS - Can't remember the fellows name. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP applies to critics of Wikipedia too?!  ;) ——SN54129 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The fellow founded Wikipedia Watch, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, Daniel Brandt. Guy (help!) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODELETE, biographies of living persons are basically the only area where the wishes of a subject comes into consideration when it comes to article deletion, in a very limited set of circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I find it interesting that the page was originally created by User:Shar1R , an editor who's main other contributions seem to have been creating an article on another Israeli company GigaSpaces and one of their products Cloudify , and some Israeli band Nikmat HaTraktor . Suffice it to say, this wouldn't be the first time some company had once thought it a good idea to pay for an article to be written about them only to later come to regret it. Although if this was what happened here, I don't really see anything that bad about the article, regardless of whether the info in it is completely up to date with what the company does now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment These issues are solved so easily just by opening an articles for deletion discussion. Shira, we keep articles where notability can be demonstrated. If enough editors can reach a delete consensus, the article will be deleted. Eliteplus (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well depends what you mean by solved I think. From the way the AFD is heading, I don't think the article is going to be deleted. And so given the OP's previous comments, I'm not sure if they would consider it an acceptable solution. Still let's hope they take our counsel onboard and accept that's how things work here even if they're not happy. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

After removing an AIV report that seems to have been an outing attempt, I've had a look at the underlying conflict. Diffs such as Special:Diff/934031454, Special:Diff/934032086 and Special:Diff/924187200 seem to indicate a long-term conflict between FOX 52 and at least one IP editor.

FOX 52, perhaps you could take a moment to explain the situation from your point of view here. The latest escalation at WP:AIV seems to indicate a need for such a discussion, possibly leading to a community ban or block against a user who appears to be attacking you repeatedly. WP:ASPERSIONS seems to be relevant, for example. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

From my end, it's been constant battle with several IP's (which may be just one individual) - They're gripe seems to be with using outdated / non-English sources, vs. updated English sourcing. (per: WP:NONENG) - I'd suggest a long term semi-protection on the page- FOX 52 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please oversight Talk:Timeline of Romanian history#Tomis, there is no WP:OUTING so it can be rendered here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing there rises to the level of requiring oversight. I've dropped a NPA warning on the IP's talk page though. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Ok, good to know. On ro.wiki obscenities and personal attacks usually get hidden from public view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blackmane: Oh, yes, the culprit is 93.122.250.147 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: there are very specific requirements for Oversight on en.wp, please see WP:OVERSIGHT. Also, Oversight requests should be sent to the oversight request email and not on a very public page such as ANI. Blackmane (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Such can be revdel'd.-- Deepfriedokra 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I HATted that. Looks like it would require a prohibitively large range block to stop it all. There's no clean version, so I did not revdel so as not to lose the thing, though I guess it should be archived. If 147 has been adequately warned, I could block.-- Deepfriedokra 05:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

147's last edit was January 1st, so I won't block now.-- Deepfriedokra 05:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

On 11 December 2019, Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) unilaterally changed ⟨²⟩ to ⟨ˇ⟩ on Help:IPA/Swedish and Help:IPA/Norwegian and made around 1,500 edits to pages that contained the symbol inside {{IPA-sv}} or {{IPA-no}} using AutoWikiBrowser, in spite of MOS:PRON#Other languages' recommendation to discuss changes to IPA keys in advance. Kwamikagami also unilaterally changed ⟨¹⟩ in Swedish transcriptions to ⟨ˈ⟩, although ⟨¹⟩ had been introduced after a discussion months earlier. When asked to point to the consensus for these changes, the user responded, "The consensus is that we use IPA for IPA", without providing any specific policy, guideline or discussion.

Although the introduction of ⟨²⟩ was not based on an explicit consensus either (but discussed and agreed on by two editors nonetheless), the fact it had been in use on so many pages for more than three years illustrates an implicit yet well-established consensus. I asked for comments on this matter at Help talk:IPA/Swedish, pinging ten users who had recently edited or discussed the Swedish guide, and no one has come out in favor of the new ⟨ˇ⟩, while three have explicitly spoken against it.

I would simply apply BRD if the changes were made only to the guides or to a handful of pages, but the sheer scale of them is making me reluctant to revert them and risk inciting a massive edit war. I want to ask whether Kwamikagami was allowed to make these changes without consulting others first and whether they should keep their privileges, particularly AWB. Nardog (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Basically, IPA templates should be in IPA, or they're misleading to our readers. You can always find editors who wish to substitute in-house conventions, but such walled-garden usage is detrimental to an encyclopedia with a world-wide scope. We've long had agreement that digits should not be used for tone in Asian, American or African languages. It's only in a few European languages that spurious IPA tone numbers continue to be used. In this case, several publications of the IPA itself explicitly recommend these characters for the two tones of Swedish and Norwegian. They're dated, but at least they're not actually wrong. I don't see why fixing the IPA to actually be IPA needs prior permission, any more than fixing any other error. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of such large-scale changes when the talk page already made it clear that people would have disagreed. Then again, I hesitate to be too critical of Kwami's mass edit. If an editor is willing to discuss the matter, presumably they're also willing to fix their own large-scale changes if discussion steers towards a consensus they initially disagreed with. AGF prompts us to believe this about other editors without clear evidence to the contrary. I have seen a number of instances when Kwami implemented a consensus that they personally disagreed with.

If other people are expecting to punish Kwami for an epic game of BRD or, even worse, to explicitly get them to say that they'll self-revert if consensus goes against their stated position, I would hope that we can at least acknowledge that this carries with it a pretty strong assumption of bad faith. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: You've had your say at Help talk:IPA/Swedish, and it is clear you stand alone. Repeating it here, which is a place to discuss not content but conduct, is not going to move the needle in your favor. Can you make a promise not to edit war if I reverted your bold edits in honor of WP:BRD, or, better yet, revert them yourself as Aeusoes1 suggested? (Indiscriminate replacement in IPA-sv wouldn't do it as some instances are of Finland Swedish, which still must use ⟨ˈ⟩.) Nardog (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)